Mr. Jack, Amherst officials say, would likely not have benefited under traditional affirmative action programs. In their groundbreaking 1998 study of 28 selective universities, William Bowen, the former president of Princeton, and Derek Bok, now the interim president of Harvard, found that 86 percent of blacks who enrolled were middle or upper middle class. (Amherst was not included in that study.) The white students were even wealthier.

“Universities have prided themselves on making strides in racial diversity, but for the most part they have avoided the larger issue of class inequality,” said Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation.

My experience in Democratically controled Philadelphia is that keeping the lower income out of higher education is institutional. If our public schools were managed better, and our children taught better low income inner city youth woul be able to passs entrance exams, and admission requirements to get the education they need.

Again, another example of how the democratic party, and liberals want to maintain an under class. "If we educate eveyone properly who's going to be the Janitor? Who's going to need our social services if people are able to help themselves? How can we tax more and feloniously misaprpriate funds into our pockets? We can't actually allow people to obtain the American dream."

My experience in Democratically controled Philadelphia is that keeping the lower income out of higher education is institutional. If our public schools were managed better, and our children taught better low income inner city youth woul be able to passs entrance exams, and admission requirements to get the education they need.

I agree with this 100%, the state of education in this country is abysmal unless you are from the suburbs.

Quote

Again, another example of how the democratic party, and liberals want to maintain an under class. "If we educate eveyone properly who's going to be the Janitor? Who's going to need our social services if people are able to help themselves? How can we tax more and feloniously misaprpriate funds into our pockets? We can't actually allow people to obtain the American dream."

I would like to see everyone reach their full potential, or at least be given the opportunity to do so. Someone is still going to have to be the janitor, but let it be the kids who either don't want the opportunity to do better, or who honestly can't.

Do I understand your argument correctly? Since philly is controlled by democrats and philly has systemic education problems, the democrats must be anti-education and therefore anti-american dream?

Obviously a powerful argument!

I think he was using Philly as an example of his argument, not as part of some form of if-then logical clause. Take it with a grain of salt, I did.

The fact of the matter, however, is that liberal leaders often view themselves as an educated elite charged with looking after the unwashed masses. That was basically how Castro viewed himself.

Gwiz seems to be arguing that these liberal leaders have a vested interest in proving that the "unwashed masses" exist and in-fact need their help and constant nannying. If we were to create a system of true socio-economic mobility, it would be harder for these people to gain power (what they are really after), and therefore, they pursue nanny-state policies, instead of attacking the problems that really affect our ability to better ourselves in any meaningful way.

Why do you think the Democratic candidates always line up to perform fellatio on the president of the AFL-CIO? It's about power. Really though, both parties are about power, and the sooner we realize that none of them really out to help us, the better off we'll be.

Ok. Not going to nitpick on specifics, but your background info doesn't build the bridge between "democrats are in control here" and "democrats are anti-education." The unwashed masses analogy doesn't cut it; some of the most Liberal countries in the world knock our socks off in terms of overall education.

Yeah, but education in the UK, for example, isn't run by corrupt teacher's unions.

Do I understand your argument correctly? Since philly is controlled by democrats and philly has systemic education problems, the democrats must be anti-education and therefore anti-american dream?

Obviously a powerful argument!

I think he was using Philly as an example of his argument, not as part of some form of if-then logical clause. Take it with a grain of salt, I did.

The fact of the matter, however, is that liberal leaders often view themselves as an educated elite charged with looking after the unwashed masses. That was basically how Castro viewed himself.

Gwiz seems to be arguing that these liberal leaders have a vested interest in proving that the "unwashed masses" exist and in-fact need their help and constant nannying. If we were to create a system of true socio-economic mobility, it would be harder for these people to gain power (what they are really after), and therefore, they pursue nanny-state policies, instead of attacking the problems that really affect our ability to better ourselves in any meaningful way.

Why do you think the Democratic candidates always line up to perform fellatio on the president of the AFL-CIO? It's about power. Really though, both parties are about power, and the sooner we realize that none of them really out to help us, the better off we'll be.

Yea, I'm not really eloquent. Republicans don't easily get my vote either. I was using the example of philadelphia because that is what I'm familiar with. I didn't generalize nationally because I realise that not all cities are democrat controlled. I chose the democrats because I'm not one. If you're a democrat that doesn't make you bad.